USA v. Diodayan Ledesma-Cuesta, No. 13-3041 (3d Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
GLD-367 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 13-3041 ___________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DIODAYAN LEDESMA-CUESTA, Appellant ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal No. 2:01-cr-00374-001) District Judge: Honorable Stewart Dalzell ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 August 1, 2013 Before: FUENTES, FISHER and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: August 15, 2013) _________ OPINION _________ PER CURIAM Diodayan Ledesma-Cuesta appeals an order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 1651 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Having dealt with nearidentical appeals from Ledesma-Cuesta in the recent past, we will summary affirm for substantially the same reasons discussed in our August 2012 opinion. See United States v. Ledesma-Cuesta, 476 F. App x 412, 412 (3d Cir. 2012) (nonprecedential per curiam); see also 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. To the extent that Ledesma-Cuesta relies on Kessack v. United States, No. C05-1828Z, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7739 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 18, 2008), we have previously declined to follow that case, and the Ninth Circuit has explicitly rejected its outcome. See United States v. Gamboa, 608 F.3d 492, 495 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that Kessack is contrary to the law of [the Ninth] Circuit ); Massey v. United States, 581 F.3d 172, 174 n.2 (3d Cir. 2009) (per curiam). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
